Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. >I personally wouldn't consider that " essentially meaningless. " I said that the term " alcohol-related " is essentially meaningless, not that the phenomenon of alcohol-influenced accidents doesn't exist. But of course you actually knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > >At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 > >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. > >That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a >little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only person accidents? I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver. That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities, caused by a drinking driver. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > >At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 > >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. > >That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a >little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only person accidents? I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver. That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities, caused by a drinking driver. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 , thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near each other, certainly not in the same message. I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow. > >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a > >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper > >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " > > I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of > a red flag. It's essentially meaningless. > > It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory. > > >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all > >the time, before and since. > > The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had an > accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including one > full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in > none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 , thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near each other, certainly not in the same message. I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow. > >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a > >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper > >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " > > I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of > a red flag. It's essentially meaningless. > > It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory. > > >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all > >the time, before and since. > > The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had an > accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including one > full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in > none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 , thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near each other, certainly not in the same message. I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow. > >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a > >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper > >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " > > I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of > a red flag. It's essentially meaningless. > > It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory. > > >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all > >the time, before and since. > > The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had an > accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including one > full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in > none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > > > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol > >related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere > >(sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an > >accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the > >driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not > >even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not > >a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering > >BAC limits. > > Of course, people can have reasons for wishing BAC rates were higher, > too.... makes it look like problems with alcohol are minor or nonexistent. > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than America. > Steve What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > > > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol > >related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere > >(sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an > >accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the > >driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not > >even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not > >a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering > >BAC limits. > > Of course, people can have reasons for wishing BAC rates were higher, > too.... makes it look like problems with alcohol are minor or nonexistent. > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than America. > Steve What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > > > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol > >related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere > >(sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an > >accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the > >driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not > >even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not > >a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering > >BAC limits. > > Of course, people can have reasons for wishing BAC rates were higher, > too.... makes it look like problems with alcohol are minor or nonexistent. > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than America. > Steve What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 07:51 PM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote: >, thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's >admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny >place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near >each other, certainly not in the same message. > I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not >intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow. Go back and read it again. I didn't say it in response to her mentioning her son's death; I said it in response to a later comment. I'll leave it below so that you can reread it. > > > >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he >had quite a > > >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold >sobner, and > > > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC >the paper > > >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " > > > > I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of > > a red flag. It's essentially meaningless. > > > > It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory. > > > > >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He >drives drunk all > > >the time, before and since. > > > > The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had >an > > accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including >one > > full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in > > none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > In a message dated 8/11/01 2:40:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > cool_guy@s... writes: > > > > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol > > related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere > > (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an > > accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the > > driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not > > even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not > > a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering > > BAC limits. > > > > I think the lower BAC limits are getting ridiculous -- .08 is silly, imo. Oh but Mona! The lower BACs work in Europe! > However, I also know that it is going to be rare for a driver to be sober > while the passengers are not. Indeed, that this was the case in the instance > in which my son died shocked us all very much, since the dreiveer is a > notorious drunk. > > It just so happened he hadn't had any alcohol that day -- yet. He was merely > " playing chicken " on the highway. > > He did, BTW, test positive for THC. But it was impossible to determine when > he had smoked pot last, and he insisted he had not smoked that day. About the driver, how am I not surprised about the positive THC test results! I think pot effects different people in various ways, just as alcohol or any other mind altering substance does, and those that say pot doesn't make you a worse driver are full of it (in probably 99% of the cases anyway, but there could be some exceptions). The guy sounds like a nut; I'd sooner blame him than pot, of course. I am not sure about your feelings on this... it is my opinion that DUI laws are similar to drug laws, that they are not needed and do not help the " problem " . So I don't think it matters if the driver was under the influence of any drug. I believe the driver should be punished for what he did, for his actions that caused harm to another human being's property or person and shouldn't be given extra punishment because he was influenced by a drug, nor should he be let off in any way because of it. But it is a far from perfect world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > In a message dated 8/11/01 2:40:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > cool_guy@s... writes: > > > > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol > > related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere > > (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an > > accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the > > driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not > > even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not > > a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering > > BAC limits. > > > > I think the lower BAC limits are getting ridiculous -- .08 is silly, imo. Oh but Mona! The lower BACs work in Europe! > However, I also know that it is going to be rare for a driver to be sober > while the passengers are not. Indeed, that this was the case in the instance > in which my son died shocked us all very much, since the dreiveer is a > notorious drunk. > > It just so happened he hadn't had any alcohol that day -- yet. He was merely > " playing chicken " on the highway. > > He did, BTW, test positive for THC. But it was impossible to determine when > he had smoked pot last, and he insisted he had not smoked that day. About the driver, how am I not surprised about the positive THC test results! I think pot effects different people in various ways, just as alcohol or any other mind altering substance does, and those that say pot doesn't make you a worse driver are full of it (in probably 99% of the cases anyway, but there could be some exceptions). The guy sounds like a nut; I'd sooner blame him than pot, of course. I am not sure about your feelings on this... it is my opinion that DUI laws are similar to drug laws, that they are not needed and do not help the " problem " . So I don't think it matters if the driver was under the influence of any drug. I believe the driver should be punished for what he did, for his actions that caused harm to another human being's property or person and shouldn't be given extra punishment because he was influenced by a drug, nor should he be let off in any way because of it. But it is a far from perfect world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > In a message dated 8/11/01 2:40:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > cool_guy@s... writes: > > > > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol > > related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere > > (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an > > accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the > > driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not > > even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not > > a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering > > BAC limits. > > > > I think the lower BAC limits are getting ridiculous -- .08 is silly, imo. Oh but Mona! The lower BACs work in Europe! > However, I also know that it is going to be rare for a driver to be sober > while the passengers are not. Indeed, that this was the case in the instance > in which my son died shocked us all very much, since the dreiveer is a > notorious drunk. > > It just so happened he hadn't had any alcohol that day -- yet. He was merely > " playing chicken " on the highway. > > He did, BTW, test positive for THC. But it was impossible to determine when > he had smoked pot last, and he insisted he had not smoked that day. About the driver, how am I not surprised about the positive THC test results! I think pot effects different people in various ways, just as alcohol or any other mind altering substance does, and those that say pot doesn't make you a worse driver are full of it (in probably 99% of the cases anyway, but there could be some exceptions). The guy sounds like a nut; I'd sooner blame him than pot, of course. I am not sure about your feelings on this... it is my opinion that DUI laws are similar to drug laws, that they are not needed and do not help the " problem " . So I don't think it matters if the driver was under the influence of any drug. I believe the driver should be punished for what he did, for his actions that caused harm to another human being's property or person and shouldn't be given extra punishment because he was influenced by a drug, nor should he be let off in any way because of it. But it is a far from perfect world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > I didn't take any offense at all from 's point. I think all she meant > was that it was odd that a drunk who drives that way all the time, was > actually sober when he killed someone. That's pretty much how I see it, too. Yes it is very ironic. Its funny that people replace the word ironic with the word funny so often. sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > I didn't take any offense at all from 's point. I think all she meant > was that it was odd that a drunk who drives that way all the time, was > actually sober when he killed someone. That's pretty much how I see it, too. Yes it is very ironic. Its funny that people replace the word ironic with the word funny so often. sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > I didn't take any offense at all from 's point. I think all she meant > was that it was odd that a drunk who drives that way all the time, was > actually sober when he killed someone. That's pretty much how I see it, too. Yes it is very ironic. Its funny that people replace the word ironic with the word funny so often. sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Weird, really weird. It's against the law to drive drunk...but there are so many bars out in the boonies or far away, such that the *only* way to get to and from the bar is to drive. (And it's against the law to dub videotapes, so they sell blank tapes, VCR's with instructions on how to dub, cords with which to do the job....) It seems that some laws are set up to be broken. Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Weird, really weird. It's against the law to drive drunk...but there are so many bars out in the boonies or far away, such that the *only* way to get to and from the bar is to drive. (And it's against the law to dub videotapes, so they sell blank tapes, VCR's with instructions on how to dub, cords with which to do the job....) It seems that some laws are set up to be broken. Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Weird, really weird. It's against the law to drive drunk...but there are so many bars out in the boonies or far away, such that the *only* way to get to and from the bar is to drive. (And it's against the law to dub videotapes, so they sell blank tapes, VCR's with instructions on how to dub, cords with which to do the job....) It seems that some laws are set up to be broken. Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > Weird, really weird. It's against the law to drive drunk...but there are so many bars out > in the boonies or far away, such that the *only* way to get to and from the bar is to > drive. > > (And it's against the law to dub videotapes, so they sell blank tapes, VCR's with > instructions on how to dub, cords with which to do the job....) > > It seems that some laws are set up to be broken. actually some laws are just bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > Weird, really weird. It's against the law to drive drunk...but there are so many bars out > in the boonies or far away, such that the *only* way to get to and from the bar is to > drive. > > (And it's against the law to dub videotapes, so they sell blank tapes, VCR's with > instructions on how to dub, cords with which to do the job....) > > It seems that some laws are set up to be broken. actually some laws are just bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > Weird, really weird. It's against the law to drive drunk...but there are so many bars out > in the boonies or far away, such that the *only* way to get to and from the bar is to > drive. > > (And it's against the law to dub videotapes, so they sell blank tapes, VCR's with > instructions on how to dub, cords with which to do the job....) > > It seems that some laws are set up to be broken. actually some laws are just bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 02:49 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > >At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 > > >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. > > > >That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a > >little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. > >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only person >accidents? >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver. >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities, caused >by a drinking driver. You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 02:49 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > >At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 > > >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. > > > >That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a > >little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. > >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only person >accidents? >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver. >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities, caused >by a drinking driver. You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 02:49 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > >At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 > > >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. > > > >That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a > >little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. > >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only person >accidents? >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver. >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities, caused >by a drinking driver. You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.